Right, that's it, we need censorship.

Mr Benevolent

Does everyone stumble blindly along believing every word the media prints?

Every day I take the Dart and Luas, and every day I'm confronted by headlines staring out at me from every person who thinks news is a) important and b) interesting. Murders, rapes, all sorts of stuff that the reccession pales in comparison compared to. Frankly, I believe that all media sources should be censored.

In essence, this means no news that doesn't affect us directly, an TBH the only thing that effects us directly is transport problems, tax changes and the weather.

Look at how much the media has contributed to this recession in Ireland. Everyon reads the news, so everyone panics and bang, more job losses because some CEO read the effing Metro.

(And no, Boards.ie ain't a media source, and yes, it is censored with good reason.)

Someone's going to point out that I don't have to read the newspapers, look at TV etc, but they're wrong. You can't avoid the media anymore, we're pounded by bad news while the media sit back and laugh, confident that their lust for horror is a very profitable one. Sick f*ckers.

Crumble Froo

... the newspapers are free. something to do on the commute other than stare at other commuters.

if you want people to think other things, give them something to occupy their minds for free on the commute to work.

oh, and you really can avoid the media, trust me on that one. only news i ever really find out is by word of mouth, or boards.

me_right_one

+1 to the OP. There should be some sort of controls on what gets published. Sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t should be banned

AnonoBoy

Confab wrote: »

Everyon reads the news, so everyone panics and bang, more job losses because some CEO read the effing Metro.

Your grasp of economics is truly outstanding.

destroyer

So who should do the censoring?, and what happens if you dont agree with what the censor allows?. YOU must be the censor! But what happens if others dont agree with what you allow? Fcuk it, everyone will just have to be their own censor and read or ignore what they like.

T-K-O

Ya''ll trippin.... (I'm having an identity crisis)

Anyway - get outta here with that BS - change the channel and don't read the paper - the decision is yours.

Good news is no news that is the way it has always been.

Mr Benevolent

Your grasp of economics is truly outstanding

No, it's just like everyone else's

TurkeyBurger

me_right_one wrote: »

+1 to the OP. There should be some sort of controls on what gets published.

Like these?

Censorship of Publications Act, 1929

Censorship of Publications Act, 1946

Censorship of Publications Act, 1967

Or these lads?

Irish Film Classification Office

HalloweenJack

You seem to think that if the media tell us everything is bright and cheery that theses things will just go away and never happen again.

That's not going to happen.

No to censorship. We need free speech.

ScumLord

Confab wrote: »

Does everyone stumble blindly along believing every word the media prints?

God I hope not, you'd have to be slightly brain damaged to take anything the tabloids say as fact. I only read them when at friends houses, who only them for the entertainment value.


I think the traditional news sources should be forced to show a more balanced world view. For every bit of bad news their should be a bit of good news to go with it. It's different with websites because they can show the complete picture it's up to you to pick which storeys you want to read.

me_right_one

TurkeyBurger wrote: »

Like these?

Censorship of Publications Act, 1929

Censorship of Publications Act, 1946

Censorship of Publications Act, 1967

Or these lads?

Irish Film Classification Office

Yes, only a bit stricter. Weed out any sensationalism.

Dudess

Confab wrote: »

Does everyone stumble blindly along believing every word the media prints?

No.

Every day I take the Dart and Luas, and every day I'm confronted by headlines staring out at me from every person who thinks news is a) important and b) interesting.

I don't understand what your objection is to people reading the morning paper. I would also be someone who thinks the news is important. As for "interesting" - well it depends on the news story.

Murders, rapes, all sorts of stuff that the reccession pales in comparison compared to. Frankly, I believe that all media sources should be censored.

In essence, this means no news that doesn't affect us directly, an TBH the only thing that effects us directly is transport problems, tax changes and the weather.

You appear to be confusing "us" with "you". The economic downturn is affecting a lot of people.

Look at how much the media has contributed to this recession in Ireland. Everyon reads the news, so everyone panics and bang, more job losses because some CEO read the effing Metro.

The recession is because of the economic climate, media contribution or no media contribution. I do wonder too though whether companies are exploiting it for their own gains.

Boards.ie ain't a media source

Technically it is.

we're pounded by bad news while the media sit back and laugh, confident that their lust for horror is a very profitable one. Sick f*ckers.

I agree to a point. But I don't think it's the actual reporting of the more macabre stories that's sick... it's the manner in which they're reported. Sky News milked the Baby P horror and the Madeleine disappearance and if I were a religious person I would pray that a special corner of hell be reserved for Rupert Murdoch.
Nothing wrong with reporting the likes of the Baby P case - creating awareness that there are children living (and dying) in diabolical circumstances is no bad thing... but sensationalising it and using it to make extra advertising revenue - that's the sick aspect.

Gone Drinking

I didn't read the original post, or any of the posts thereafter..

I'm just here for the violence

The Volt

It's a very grey area IMO, I mean, how much censorship and who exactly gets to control it?

Unfortunately people are too immersed in a world of Celebrity than real issues. We see it everyday, but these businesses aren't stupid. The role of mass media, should it have the power to change our views or simply reflect on everyday life?

mike65

Charlie Brooker FTW!

panda100

Confab wrote: »

Does everyone stumble blindly along believing every word the media prints?

Every day I take the Dart and Luas, and every day I'm confronted by headlines staring out at me from every person who thinks news is a) important and b) interesting. Murders, rapes, all sorts of stuff that the reccession pales in comparison compared to. Frankly, I believe that all media sources should be censored.

In essence, this means no news that doesn't affect us directly, an TBH the only thing that effects us directly is transport problems, tax changes and the weather.

Look at how much the media has contributed to this recession in Ireland. Everyon reads the news, so everyone panics and bang, more job losses because some CEO read the effing Metro.

This isnt an issue of censorship, its an issue of agenda setting by the media. What is their agenda when setting their news items? Why do they prioritise murders,unemployment,gang land shootings over positive news items or larger global issues?
As a socialist I believe its in the establishment medias agenda to cause a moral panic. Makes us believe that thers so much bad stuff in the world that we need people to govern us instead of us governing ourselves. But thats just my simplistic opinion.

t-ha

me_right_one wrote: »

Sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t should be banned

or made to pay for basic education in this country - reading sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t is all most people do with it anyway...

Blazer

Confab wrote: »

Does everyone stumble blindly along believing every word the media prints?

Every day I take the Dart and Luas, and every day I'm confronted by headlines staring out at me from every person who thinks news is a) important and b) interesting. Murders, rapes, all sorts of stuff that the reccession pales in comparison compared to. Frankly, I believe that all media sources should be censored.

In essence, this means no news that doesn't affect us directly, an TBH the only thing that effects us directly is transport problems, tax changes and the weather.

Look at how much the media has contributed to this recession in Ireland. Everyon reads the news, so everyone panics and bang, more job losses because some CEO read the effing Metro.

(And no, Boards.ie ain't a media source, and yes, it is censored with good reason.)

Someone's going to point out that I don't have to read the newspapers, look at TV etc, but they're wrong. You can't avoid the media anymore, we're pounded by bad news while the media sit back and laugh, confident that their lust for horror is a very profitable one. Sick f*ckers.

Fcuk off to China/Iran/Cuba/Iraq then if you want the media censored.
That way then you can complain about having the media/internet censored and see how you like it and whether you agree with it.

Mr Benevolent

Talking about media freedom in Ireland is like talking about the kind of freedom the US military have in Iraq.

Dudess

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

Fcuk off to China/Iran/Cuba/Iraq then if you want the media censored.
That way then you can complain about having the media/internet censored and see how you like it and whether you agree with it.

Cue someone saying "Actually Ireland is pretty much as bad as those places" oblivious to the irony of us being able to discuss it here... oh and the fact that we don't have to worry about being thrown in jail and tortured/killed, which is kinda belittling the misery the people of various dictatorships have to go through every day.

SoWatchaWant

Confab wrote: »

Talking about media freedom in Ireland is like talking about the kind of freedom the US military have in Iraq.

They have the right to write about what they want, even if it's poorly written/horrible speculation/fearmongering.

YOU also have the right to refute what they say so that the public is that much more informed. You should cherish this freedom. Or, you can ignore them if you like, but you don't have the right to demand that the world be cleared of stupid stuff in the tabloids.

That's how our society works, there's no penalty or censorship for saying something stupid, nor should there be- other than having your argument torn apart by smarter people.

Mr.Lizard

Confab wrote: »

some CEO read the effing Metro.

What's a CEO doing reading the metro? You'd think on they're salary they could afford a decent newspaper. Probably get them as a free job perk anyway.

Dagon

I don't believe censorship is the solution to this.

Nobody is forcing you to read other people papers or watch the news! I don't read the news, listen to the radio, or buy any newspapers. I check out news related to stuff that I'm interested in (music, music production, film) and that's news enough for me! In work I see people getting stressed out and worried about various things they've read - it's obvious that the media is used to control and manipulate people through fear, why subscribe to that?

The effects of drip feeding information through the mass media on a daily basis are quite negative - the whole doom and gloom thing was multiplied many times by the media... but I still maintain, you are responsible for censoring the information you consume. Giving that control to someone else is not necessary. I didn't feel any gloom and doom because I simply didn't read about it or watch the news. It's terrible when people lose their jobs, but each individual has his/her own problems to deal with, and endlessly consuming bad news about other people and events is an energy drain we can all do without imho!! And this obsession with the mental states of celebrities says a lot about us, how about dealing with our own problems instead?

Mr Benevolent

YOU also have the right to refute what they say so that the public is that much more informed. You should cherish freedom.

What freedom? How exactly do I go about refuting what they say?

Freedom to do or say whatever they want is not a good thing.

destroyer

me_right_one wrote: »

+1 to the OP. There should be some sort of controls on what gets published. Sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t should be banned

I want more sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t
I live for sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t.
Dont you dare ban sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t.
Sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t ftw.

destroyer

Confab wrote: »

Freedom to do or say whatever they want is not a good thing.

eh...yes it is actually.

Boskowski

Can we shortcut this thread here and now?

Hitler

Angelicus_22

T-K-O wrote: »

Ya''ll trippin.... (I'm having an identity crisis)

Anyway - get outta here with that BS - change the channel and don't read the paper - the decision is yours.

Good news is no news that is the way it has always been.

Exactly, why do people always blame the media, its like a drugie blaming his coke for being too damn addictive....

no one forces you to read the **** and the only reason that tabloids get away with being like that is because..... *drum roll* people want that.... there are the millions of ignorant joe nobodies who just want to get their fill of trashy celebrity news or sensationalist economics and thats it, you cant keep blaming the media, for without its masses of slaves the media would be nothing....

Mr Benevolent

eh...yes it is actually.

No, it's not. For instance, the freedom to kill anyone for no reason. The freedom to kick puppies. The freedom to sh!t in someone's dinner. Are any of those good (barring the usual AH responses)?

Yet we let the media use that freedom to make us fear everything. Is that 'good' freedom?

T-K-O

Angelicus_22 wrote: »

Exactly, why do people always blame the media, its like a drugie blaming his coke for being too damn addictive....

no one forces you to read the **** and the only reason that tabloids get away with being like that is because..... *drum roll* people want that.... there are the millions of ignorant joe nobodies who just want to get their fill of trashy celebrity news or sensationalist economics and thats it, you cant keep blaming the media, for without its masses of slaves the media would be nothing....

Exactly - in today s society people are always looking for the kop out. Man - up take some damn responsibility for once.

People are obsessed with the most ridiculous things I.E so called celebs, there was even a thread on here the other day about their children s name - who gives a flying pig :rolleyes:

destroyer

Confab wrote: »

No, it's not. For instance, the freedom to kill anyone for no reason. The freedom to kick puppies. The freedom to sh!t in someone's dinner. Are any of those good (barring the usual AH responses)?

Yet we let the media use that freedom to make us fear everything. Is that 'good' freedom?

The media kick puppies? News to me.



ps. I have never ever heard of anyone ****ting in another persons dinner. Does this happen? How gross.
Why isnt it been reported in the papers?

The media dont make me fear anything. Speak for yourself.

Dont you even dare think about interfering in what I read or how I interepet it, I can filter information for myself and just because you are easily influenced or corrupted by what you hear and see dont assume everyone else is.

Dudess

Why do we "need" censorship anyway OP? Because you say so?

me_right_one wrote: »

+1 to the OP. There should be some sort of controls on what gets published. Sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t should be banned

If the OP specified sensationalist tabloid bullsh1t, it would be one thing, but I get the impression (s)he just wants everything (s)he doesn't like blockaded, irrespective of the publication.
Very vague post OP - just seems like you're sick of bad news and don't want to have to see it, therefore it should all be censored...

Confab wrote: »

No, it's not. For instance, the freedom to kill anyone for no reason. The freedom to kick puppies. The freedom to sh!t in someone's dinner. Are any of those good?

Obviously not. However, people should be free to say and do as they please if it doesn't harm anyone else.

This raises an interesting point: does the media set the agenda for what people want to read, or do people dictate to the media what to publish?

topper75

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Your grasp of economics is truly outstanding.

Dunno why the sarcastic quip.

My Econonics and Finance degree told me:

• Business people make decisions based on expectations
• Expectations are based on information
• Information is provided to CEOs and ordinary folk by the media
• ergo, What the media publishes DOES have ramifications

OP had fair point to an extent. Simple opinions can be valid too sometimes.

Dubh Geannain

destroyer wrote: »

So who should do the censoring?

John Kelleher?

Mr Benevolent

On a side note:

In the 30's, the owners of two major UK papers made a bet that they could get the population to do exactly what they told them to. So, one of them decided to market a brand of disgusting grey bread, trumpeting it's qualities and playing down its, ummm... taste issues.

It took two months for it to become a staple part of every diet.

(I'll look up the details when I get home so I'm not accused of making it up)

SoWatchaWant

Confab wrote: »

No, it's not. For instance, the freedom to kill anyone for no reason. The freedom to kick puppies. The freedom to sh!t in someone's dinner. Are any of those good (barring the usual AH responses)?

Yet we let the media use that freedom to make us fear everything. Is that 'good' freedom?

My God.

Are you honestly comparing the precious gift that is free speech and exchange of ideas to general anarchy?

The idea is, if you value free speech you must put up with people expressing stupid ideas as well as good ones.

SoWatchaWant

Confab wrote: »

On a side note:

In the 30's, the owners of two major UK papers made a bet that they could get the population to do exactly what they told them to. So, one of them decided to market a brand of disgusting grey bread, trumpeting it's qualities and playing down its, ummm... taste issues.

It took two months for it to become a staple part of every diet.

(I'll look up the details when I get home so I'm not accused of making it up)

Did they lie about their product explicitly? Because free speech does not extend to lying about your product to further it. There are strict regulations about false advertising now, if not then.

And if they didn't lie, then fair play to them. It's the public's fault for being that gullible.

ejmaztec

I don't believe a word of this thread.